Muhammad Ali, a legendary boxer who retired in 1981, died of septic shock on Friday, June 3rd, at the age of 74. Muhammad Ali was a three time world champion heavyweight, and only lost 5 of the 61 fights he participated in during his career. Tragedy struck shortly after his retirement when, in 1984, he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s syndrome. It is believed that he developed the syndrome, in part, due to head trauma sustained during boxing. Despite this setback, he remained active in the public eye for years after. He endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1984, published an oral history of his life, traveled to Iraq during the Gulf War to negotiate with Saddam Hussein, and lit the flame at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. These notable appearances gradually diminished over time, and halted entirely when he began to confront serious health problems in 2013.

Muhammad Ali was born Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., on January 17th, 1942. He began boxing at 12 years old, and 10 years later he became world heavyweight champion after an upset victory over Sonny Liston. He quickly gained a reputation for his endearing bravado and impressive results. In the ring, he was notable for having great reflexes and mobility, especially in comparison to other heavyweights. He constantly moved about, circling his opponent, jabbing, and dancing about to avoid punches; thus it is apropos that his most famous catchphrase would be “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee”. After defeating Sonny Liston he converted to Islam under the guidance of Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the same organization that Malcolm X belonged to before his assassination, who gave him the name for which he is now famous. This, along with his refusal to be drafted into the Vietnam war, antagonized the white political establishment. He became a counterculture icon in the process, but he was arrested and stripped of his boxing titles. Although he appealed successfully in 1971, he had lost 4 peak years of his athletic career. He regained his title in what was certainly the most dramatic, and probably the most famous, boxing match in history dubbed “The Rumble in the Jungle”.In addition to his impressive professional achievements, he also maintained an active family life. He was married four times and had 9 children, two sons and seven daughters. One of his surviving daughters is now a retired professional boxer herself. Muhammad Ali was a great man and we should all mourn his death.

The SAT is a standardized test predominately used for college admissions in the United States. It was first introduced in 1926, although it has been updated several times in order to conform with mercurial cultural beliefs regarding standardized testing. The test has a dissonant history of progressive aspirations with prejudicial undertones; its first iteration was designed by Carl Brigham, a proponent of eugenics, who wanted to eliminate the role of socioeconomic testing biases in admissions.

The first College Board exam, given to 973 students across the United States, was administered in 1901. The exam contained sections on English, classical languages, chemistry, and physics. It consisted of a series of essay responses and was rated on a subjective scale from “very poor” to “excellent”. The first SAT exam was administered much later, in 1926, to over 8,000, primarily male students. Test takers were given about 90 minutes to answer 315 questions. The test was split into many sections with abstruse names such as “artificial language”. There were so many sections, in fact, that in 1928 they actually had to decrease the number of verbal sections to 7. A year later they reduced this number to 6. In the same period of time, the time limit was increased to roughly 2 hours and math was eliminated from the test entirely. From this point forward, the mean score was intended to be 500, with a standard deviation of 100 points. Verbal test scores were linked by equating current scores to those obtained in 1941. The same was done with math scores obtained, when they were re-introduced, in 1942. Thus, the average SAT score was intended to be about 1,000.

This method of “equating” scores later backfired as the mean SAT score began to steadily decline during the 1960’s. During this period of time, the number of SAT tests taken doubled; thus, some attributed the score decline to shifts in demography. Yet, various studies have concluded that other unknown factors contributed to the decline in SAT scores, especially after 1970. Several important changes were made to the test during the 90’s, by which time the average SAT score had dropped to 900. Reading comprehension questions were further emphasized, in an attempt to reduce the importance of crystallized vocabulary in SAT scores. Plans to mandate an essay along with the exam were dropped due to dissent from minority groups, who believed that the essay would accompany an increase in test cost. It was finally decided that scores would no longer be equated to those achieved in the 1940’s, due to increasing discrepancies between a student’s raw score (# of questions correct) and scaled score (section score out of 800).

Although this correction decreased the aforementioned discrepancy, it was accompanied by a disproportionate increase in the number of students achieving a perfect score. Thus, this was corrected by slightly increasing the test’s difficulty and adding a writing section. This produced the 2400 composite score that many of us are familiar with. Score choice, an option that allows students to select which College Board exams to send to college, was made universal in 2009. In recent years, students have been required to submit photo ID, typically an admissions ticket, in order to enter their testing centers. An admissions ticket typically consists of your name, birthdate, test you intend to take, along with other identifying information including a photo. The College Board has very stringent requirements for many elements of these photos, such as facial expression and the subject’s distance from the camera, amongst other things.

Another major overhaul produced the most recent iteration of the SAT exam, which was first administered earlier this year, primarily to members of the class of 2017. Previously, a quarter of a point was deducted from a student’s raw score for each incorrect answer; now, students simply miss out on the opportunity to “gain” points; and the score is once again out of 1600. The test has also introduced new “cross-test” scores, presumed to indicate proficiency in areas such as “Analysis in Science”. The writing section, which was unpopular among many admissions offices and students alike, has been eliminated; although, in reality it seems to have been conjoined with the critical reading section. The essay is now optional, and a list of colleges requiring it for admissions can be found here: http://bit.ly/1K9X7Wg.

After skimming through this dull recitation of the various arbitrary changes made to a test that is heavily weighed in college admissions, you may be wondering: why is this test so important to colleges? Why is it necessary? Originally, the test was actually an IQ test in disguise. In fact, high scores on an SAT exam administered before 2005 may qualify you for entry into MENSA. Although this is no longer entirely the case with newer iterations of the SAT, it is clear that IQ and socioeconomic status strongly correlate with your composite score. These truths are often implicit, but rarely stated directly. Instead, the exam is alleged to “complement” the predictive value of high school GPA. Studies estimate that, although the SAT alone could explain ~13% of the variance in SAT scores, high school GPA alone can explain ~15%; when high school GPA is combined with SAT subject test scores ~22% of college success can be accounted for, but factoring in the regular SAT adds very little (0.1%) predictive value.

Thus, it is likely that SAT subject test scores in conjunction with high school GPA might better predict “college success”. It is interesting to note that colleges actually benefit more from recruiting students with potential for future success, not necessarily students who are likely to have “college success”. Smart people like Bill Gates garner lots of prestige and money for a school, regardless of whether they graduate; as do pro-athletes, entertainers, etc. Fratboys, stereotypically the least intelligent college students, actually donate the most of any group to their respective alma maters. Thus, assessments of intelligence, athleticism, and philanthropic spirit may override concerns about “college success”.

In conclusion, the regular SAT is an arbitrarily contrived standardized test that purports to predict college success, but is more likely an intelligence test in disguise and thus provides colleges with a socially acceptable metric to gauge how potential students might benefit their alma mater as alumni. College ranking services, such as the U.S News & World Report, have perverted admissions in recent years by rewarding colleges for rejecting applicants– who now compete with an increasing number of international competitors that will likely return home once they complete their studies–and maintaining artificially high test standardized scores among their students. All of this distracts from the true, noble purpose of college: education.

On March 12th, the U.S launched a long-anticipated 800 million dollar missile defense system in Romania, sparking international controversy. An additional system is currently being built in Poland, which is expected to become operational in 2018. The missile defense system, also known as the “Aegis ashore system”, will be operated by NATO, historically a coalition against the Soviet Union, and has already been certified for operations by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. In the same address, the Secretary General also insisted that the system is purely for defense purposes. U.S officials say that is intended for defense specifically against “rogue states”, such as Iran.

The fortuitous timing of the defense system’s completion coincides with recent controversy over Russian aggression in Ukraine and Georgia, among other threatened bordering nations. In spite of these recent imbroglios, Russian officials have shifted the blame to the U.S, claiming that the missile defense system violates the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which was a bilateral agreement between the U.S and the USSR. In fact, there is no evidence that the Obama administration has any plans to challenge Russia in the immediate future; back in 2009, Obama canceled a similar Bush-era plan to station land-based interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic. At the time, many members of NATO were concerned that the U.S had totally abandoned the missile defense project. It is speculated by experts that the Obama administration was in the process of trying to repair relations with Russia by signing an arms reduction treaty, also known as the “New START” treaty, thus signalling that the missile defense system truly was not directed towards it.It seems that Russia was not convinced by Obama’s gesture of good faith, and has already responded by implementing a railroad-based missile system. Russia has also drawn support from Belarus, which pledges to aid Russia in countering NATO’s missile defense program. Belarus and Russia have already established a “union state” and continue to strengthen military ties. The Belarusian foreign minister simply recited concerns similar to those posed by the Russians, saying that NATO actions have only increased tensions.

The results of the March 15th primaries have incontrovertibly altered the dynamics of this year’s election, signaling the demise of several candidates while simultaneously bolstering others.

These guys are losers.

Trump won Illinois, North Carolina, Northern Marianas, Missouri, and Florida; essentially, every single state aside from Kasich’s home state Ohio. Clinton had similar success, defeating Sanders in each state except for Missouri where they tied. Although delegate allocation hasn’t been fully tabulated yet, here are the rough gains made by each candidate that day: Clinton 371, Sanders 271, Trump 213, Kasich 80, Cruz 41, and Rubio 6. As an aside, in the interlude since the last major results were released Ted Cruz won Guam and Wyoming; Rubio won the District of Columbia. Keeping in mind these preceding victories, the rough delegate allocation totals are as follows: Clinton 1,606, Sanders 851, Trump 673, Cruz 411, Rubio 169, and Kasich 143. Keep in mind that Democrats need roughly twice as many delegates–2,382–as Republicans do–1,237– to attain the nomination; that Democratic total also factors in “superdelegates”, a group of Democratic party elites who aren’t bound to support any candidate but are presumed to heavily favor Hillary Clinton.

These result spelled disaster for Marco Rubio, who officially dropped out after losing Florida. To those unacquainted with politics, these results might not seem so pernicious. Yet, Florida was Rubio’s home state; by losing there he demonstrated insuperable weakness as a candidate and– by the Florida GOP’s winner-take-all rules– didn’t win a single delegate there. Following Rubio’s defeat, Ted Cruz declared that the GOP primary was now a “two man race”, deliberately excluding John Kasich for the following reason: it is now numerically impossible for him to win a majority of Republican delegates, even if he won every single one from now on. John Kasich’s only path to victory is through a brokered convention, which would occur if no candidate achieved a majority. However, even in this scenario Kasich would be at a profound disadvantage since even members of the Republican establishment would fear the wrath of the electorate should they back the unpopular Kasich in spite of Trump’s overwhelming popularity. There are rumors that Kasich is really just holding out in the hopes of being chosen as the nominee’s running mate. In fact, a brokered convention is actually relatively unlikely, given the political forecasting website 538’s assessment of Trumps trajectory. Mathematically speaking, Trump’s delegate count has thus far followed or exceeded that necessary to support an eventual win. No other Republican is on track. Despite this, Trump has a difficult road ahead of him, he will need to win 59% of the remaining delegates.

In summary, Marco Rubio is a political failure who dropped out after losing his home state, John Kasich won his home state but practically lost the election, Trump needs a strong performance going forward to avoid a brokered convention, and Hillary Clinton is still going to win the Democratic nomination.

Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian immigrants who served as scapegoats for an armed robbery, which occurred at the Slater and Morill Shoe Company in the Spring of 1920. On April 15th of that year, over the course of the aforementioned robbery, two men were shot dead. They were ambushed while transporting money between factories. The first victim was Alessandro Berardelli, a security guard who died in the attack, and who reached for his .38 caliber revolver before being shot 4 times. The second victim was Frederick Parmenter, who died after being shot twice as he tried to escape. A stolen Buick was used as a getaway car by the perpetrators, who shot at other workers during their escape. The killers used a .32 caliber pistol, the “Savage Model 1907”.

Sacco and Vanzetti were originally identified as suspects after their close personal association with the likely culprits, who had now escaped to Italy, brought them to the attention of the police. Both were adherents to a sect of anarchism that preached emancipation from the state by any means, including violence. Even before the Cold War, political dissidents were viewed with keen suspicion. The two men were tracked down, arrested, and searched. Sacco had his Italian passport, dissident propaganda, and a .32 caliber pistol with bullets that were of the same type as those used during the crime. Vanzetti had shotgun shells and a .38 caliber revolver, matching Alessandro Berardelli’s missing weapon. Both men lacked immediate alibis for the day of the crime. They were both charged with the aforementioned murder-robbery, and Vanzetti with a previous crime in Bridgewater which was believed to be connected.

The Bridgewater crime was tried first, and was presided over by Webster Thayer– a man with disdain for foreigners and radicals alike. Early on in the trial, which began June 22nd 1920, the prosecution presented a multitude of eyewitnesses who put Vanzetti at the scene based on his facial hair. The defense “fired back” with a flurry of witnesses– 16 in all– testifying that they had bought eels from Vanzetti throughout the day of the Bridgewater crime, in accordance with Italian tradition. Unfortunately, these witnesses were easy to disorient under cross-examination because of their poor or non-existent English proficiency. There was some controversy over whether Vanzetti should take the stand to defend himself, but nothing became of it; retrospective legal analysis indicates it may have aided his defense if were able to outperform the other defense witnesses. Vanzetti later claimed that his defense attorney, John Vahey, had conspired against him with the judge because of their mutual bias against political dissidents. In August of 1920, Vanzetti was given the maximum sentence, 15 years, for attempted robbery in the Bridgewater crime.

For the Braintree crimes– the murder robbery mentioned at the beginning of the article– Sacco and Vanzetti stood trial together. The trial began in May, 1921 and was presided over by the same judge who oversaw Vanzetti’s aforementioned attempted robbery conviction. The state presented strong circumstantial evidence against Sacco and Vanzetti; Sacco was absent from work, Sacco’s gun was of the same caliber as that used in the murder, and both men were adherents to a strain of violent anarchism. The prosecution presented witnesses indicating both men in the crime; again, the defense team responded with a series of their own witnesses, including Sacco and Vanzetti. Sacco was in Boston applying for a passport at the time of the crime and had lunch there. Several witnesses, including a clerk at the Italian consulate, corroborated his story, although the prosecution alleged that those providing his lunch-alibi were fellow anarchists. During the trial, much was made of the similarities between the murder weapon and the weapon collected from the two men. At the time of the trial, forensic analysis was fairly unsophisticated and as a result they were unable to identify even the weapon model during the trial, much less the exact weapon. It was later discovered that Sacco’s weapon was not the primary weapon used in the crime, and it is thought that the bullets matching his weapon were planted by the prosecution after the fact. Despite this, the defense was able to rebut claims that Sacco’s weapon was so unique as to be identifiable with certainty, since 300,000 guns in circulation would have matched its forensic profile at the time.

Sacco and Vanzetti were found guilty of the Braintree crime after 3 hours of deliberation on July 21st, 1921. Even at the time, many believed that they had been convicted on the basis of their anarchism, despite claims to the contrary by the jury. Both men were sentenced to death in the electric chair, since first-degree murder was a capital crime. After several appeals, a credible confession given by another man, and the protests of their supports, Sacco and Vanzetti were put to death. Both men refused to see a priest prior to execution, in accordance with their atheistic beliefs. Sacco’s last words were, “Farewell, mother”. Vanzetti’s last words were, “I wish to forgive some people for what they are now doing to me”. They died at midnight on August 22nd, 1927.

A photo of the two frontrunners, taken at Donald Trump’s third wedding.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton came out ahead after the “Super Tuesday” presidential primaries on March 1st. The results conformed to many of the predictions of pundits and political forecasters alike, although there were a couple of surprises. Many states conducted or released so few polls that it was difficult to gauge their respective predilections. This was evident in the few upsets of the night, such as Cruz winning Alaska and Oklahoma, or Rubio’s saving grace win in Minnesota. Even the political forecasting website 538, much reputed for its reliability in predicting outcomes, had Trump winning in Oklahoma.

Democratic results are as follows: Clinton won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; Sanders won Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont. The results for Republicans are as follows: Trump won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia; Cruz won Alaska, Oklahoma, and Texas; Rubio only won Minnesota. These results are meaningless without knowing the total delegate count. Although pledged delegates haven’t been completely tabulated yet, rough overall totals are as follows: Clinton 596, Sanders 407, Trump 319, Cruz 226, Rubio 110, Kasich 25, and Carson 8. In viewing these rough totals, keep in mind that unlike the Republicans, Democrats have “superdelegates”. Superdelegates are typically elected officials or prominent party members who aren’t required to vote for any particular candidate. Although the exact superdelegate breakdown– there are 712 in all– may be transient, it is safe to assume that the vast majority of them will go to Hillary Clinton. Taking into account the presumed predilections of these superdelegates, Clinton’s rough total is around 1,058 and Sanders’ should be about 431. To win the nomination, Democrats need 2,382 delegates and Republicans need 1,237.

It would be tedious for me to enumerate the idiosyncratic rules each state’s Republican Party has regarding delegate allocation, so those interested should refer to the following chart provided by “RealClearPolitics”, a website dedicated to aggregating election-related information. As a review; “number of delegates” refers to the total delegate count; primaries involve simply voting whereas caucuses are long tedious negotiation-like procedures, and typically have lower voter turnout as a result; in closed primaries only a candidate’s respective party can vote, but in open primaries independents may also vote; the threshold is the minimum percentage of the vote for a candidate’s party they have received, if it is below the threshold the person receives no delegates; finally, the ceiling refers to the minimum percentage of the vote required to receive all of a state’s allotted delegates, although if the delegates aren’t “pooled” then a candidate surpassing the ceiling would only receive all of the state’s at-large (state-wide) delegates and would then receive congressional district delegates on a proportional basis.

Chart contrived by the author of the following article from RealClearPolitics: http://bit.ly/1VP6nl2

If these rules seem complicated to you, you’ll be happy to know that the Democratic Party’s primary rules are relatively simple by comparison. Delegates are simply allotted proportionally above a 15% threshold.

Finally, to put all of this in perspective, the political forecasting website “538” has a helpful page charting the rough delegate trajectory necessary for each of the candidates to win the nomination. At this point, the candidates have reached the following percentages of their target: Clinton 115%, Trump 114%, Sanders 84%, Cruz 61% and Rubio 46%.

President Obama released a plan on February 23rd to close Guantanamo Bay which, although a promising gesture, doesn’t go nearly far enough to expiate the unethical treatment of its prisoners. From a fiscal point of view, his plan makes sense. We would initially spend up to $475 million to upgrade an existing prison and in exchange, we would save as much as $85 million annually. Unfortunately, Obama’s plan has generated much controversy among the Republican-dominated congress, and furthermore doesn’t end the practice which made Guantanamo so famous– waterboarding. In fact, according to Obama’s statements about his plan, he intends to use “all legal tools to deal with the remaining detainees”. These “legal tools” known broadly as “enhanced interrogation”, include: mild violence, cramped confinement for up to 18 hours, forced nudity, stress positions, and waterboarding, etc.

Not only are these methods of enhanced interrogation blatantly inhumane and torturous, they are also sometimes used on those whose guilt is ambiguous. Most of what we know about enhanced interrogation has been gleaned from the 10% of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s CIA report on that has been released. It confirmed that at least 26 detainees were wrongfully held. In one particularly egregious instance, an intellectually challenged man was detained for use as leverage. While those myopic enough to support enhanced interrogation may attempt to dismiss the report as leftist, the committee that authored it was majority Republican. In fact, the majority party’s delegation included future 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio, amongst other prominent Republicans.

Startlingly, enhanced interrogation is actually an awful way of gathering intelligence. According to the CIA report, no actionable intelligence was gleaned from enhanced interrogation, in fact, it actually elicited many false confessions. HIG– or High Value Detainee Interrogation Group– is a government research program comprised of FBI, CIA, and Pentagon officials, which released a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that controlling interrogation strategies– such as torture– are ineffective at producing credible intelligence. In contrast, the same study found that “supportive” rapport-building techniques produce veritable intelligence at a superior rate. While proponents of enhanced interrogation may scramble to find morsels of useful information gleaned from torture, the argument is a non sequitur. Whether or not torture has ever produced actionable intelligence is irrelevant if other–more moral– methods produce equal or, in this case, superior results. In my research for this article, I could find no peer-reviewed study to promulgate the ubiquitous notion that torture is more effective than other means of interrogation and several to prove the opposite.

Despite the obvious immorality of enhanced interrogation, it is disgustingly ambiguous whether it is illegal in our country. Legally, torture is defined as “an act committed by a person… intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”. Severe mental pain or suffering is constituted by a series of vague standards, which allow the government to dodge questions of legality behind the ambiguity of the law. In contrast to our own government’s moral cowardice, waterboarding is denounced as torture by reputed international bodies such as the Red Cross and the European Court of Human Rights.

In conclusion, Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo Bay has needlessly stirred partisan controversy in spite of its reluctance to permanently end state-sanctioned torture in our country. Instead, the proposal attempts to exculpate the government by removing it from the facility that has come to symbolize its sins. While it may be fiscally responsible, and relatively safe, to move detainees elsewhere, it doesn’t prevent the greater evil: torture. To reiterate, enhanced interrogation is torture, and torture is–at least based on the evidence available– extremely ineffective at producing actionable intelligence and inhumane in the extreme. It is fair to assume that torture might stop if detainees were sent to a U.S facility, but it is imperative that we explicitly prevent such revenge-driven, cruel, and ineffective practices from being continued in the future.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders won in a landslide during the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, with each garnering a 20 point lead in their respective party, causing speculation that voters are fed up with regular politicians. Both men were projected to win by the statistical forecasting website “538”, which gave Trump a 68% chance of winning, versus Bernie’s 99%. Voters came out in record numbers, and some of the results were surprising. In the Republican primary, John Kasich surprised everyone by coming in second place and receiving roughly 15% of the vote; he was followed closely by Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush who both received approximately 11% of the vote.

After votes have been tabulated, they are then converted– using each state’s respective idiosyncratic system– into pledged delegates, which are then combined with un-pledged delegates, typically prominent politicians who are not bound to vote for any particular candidate, in order to identify the candidate who yields a majority of the delegation. If no such majority exists, then a brokered convention occurs, during which a frontrunner is chosen based on political bartering. Brokered conventions are atypical, since in recent years a clear frontrunner has emerged with enough traction to avoid such a situation.

This delegate system endows New Hampshire’s primary rules with special significance. New Hampshire awards delegates proportionally, as one might intuitively expect, but only if they exceed a certain threshold– at least 10% in this case. Candidates who don’t exceed the threshold have their share of the delegation stripped from them and given to the front runner. Republicans compete for a New Hampshire delegation consisting of 23 pledged delegates in total, versus the 24 reserved for the Democrats.